If you do, hurt yourself. George Washington and James Madison would backhand you across your puling sniveling cock-craving mouth.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

See that part in red? What part of it is difficult to understand? We have allowed ourselves to become complacent and slippery-sloped, frog-boiled down the point where we are willing to "go along to get along" with certain restrictions, just so we can keep a few of them.

Every man-jack of us should have the right to tote full automatic SAW up and down the streets of our neighborhoods if we so desire. It is time to push this shit back and knock the pendulum back in the right direction.

what i support is that violent felons. you know, the types that would be shot by us upstanding citizens, be allowed to own.

Please visit the Gunsmithing/Machining Forum in the Armory =)"It is the Marine, who salutes the flag,who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flagthat allows the protester to burn the flag."

About the first "reasonable" firearm law that comes to mind is barring the sale of a firearm to violent convicted criminal (albeit they should still be locked up in jail but since we have a revolving door justice system some end up back in civilization).

Is there anyone other than yourself you trust with such subjective power to strip another of their rights?

If not then your answer should be no.

Alabama: That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare....That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (Art. I, § 26)

About the first "reasonable" firearm law that comes to mind is barring the sale of a firearm to violent convicted criminal (albeit they should still be locked up in jail but since we have a revolving door justice system some end up back in civilization).

...And this is the million dollar question. For the bonus round, who gets to define "reasonable"? Is it hunters, law abiding citizens, the yahoo's who are elected my the same law abiding citizens or the special interest groups?

The inherent flaw is that reasonable is a subjective term. Not just with guns but anything that you deem "reasonable" is subject to question by another. I've got to hand it to whomever got "reasonable firearm laws" into the common language for discussion. Now that the door is open, anything is possible

what if you are convicted of a violent felony at age 18, protecting your girl or something and clean yourself up and live a life of hard work and noble behavior. Certain inalienable rights I as a fellow man do not have the right to take from another man.

"Reasonable and common sense", seen in the light of the Constitution, which is the law by the way, means I should reasonably be able to own any current military weapon. Now, "Unreasonable and lack of common sense" would mean that I have restrictions to weapon ownership which contradict the Constitution, which is our extant situation.

Proud member of Ranstad's Militia

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.Thomas Jefferson

Reasonable or common sense gun laws are vital to keeping society safe. I believe firearms manufacturers are on the whole, an honest group, but having legal requirements that their gun operate as advertised should be enforced.

there are 22,000 gun laws on the books in the US. What we need are a good 20.

1. Don't kill innocent people with guns (self defense is always okay).
2. Don't fuck people's property up with guns.
3. Don't carry firearms into government buildings, schools, etc.
4. Don't possess drugs with guns or rob people with guns.
5. Don't brandish or otherwise point guns at other people in a threatening manner.

I really wish the next time they have one of the Brady morons on tv doing an interview about their 'common sense gun law' bulllshit...the person doing the interview just keeps repeating 'shall not be infringed'.

Originally Posted By LordSkeletor:there are 22,000 gun laws on the books in the US. What we need are a good 20.

1. Don't kill innocent people with guns (self defense is always okay).
2. Don't fuck people's property up with guns.3. Don't carry firearms into government buildings, schools, etc.4. Don't possess drugs with guns or rob people with guns.5. Don't brandish or otherwise point guns at other people in a threatening manner.

Originally Posted By omega62:I actually do support gun laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons (rapists, murderers), yes.

However, I believe that we need just a few very strong laws along those lines, and that is all. (No other gun control).

This. "Reasonable" in my eyes, is not reasonable to the Brady Campain.

I support laws that effectively prevent violent felons from owning guns, and laws that prevent or help eliminate the black market gun industry. And no, FTF sales do not qualify as "black market gun trafficking".....

Originally Posted By Lootie23:
If you do, hurt yourself. George Washington and James Madison would backhand you across your puling sniveling cock-craving mouth.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

See that part in red? What part of it is difficult to understand? We have allowed ourselves to become complacent and slippery-sloped, frog-boiled down the point where we are willing to "go along to get along" with certain restrictions, just so we can keep a few of them.

Every man-jack of us should have the right to tote full automatic SAW up and down the streets of our neighborhoods if we so desire. It is time to push this shit back and knock the pendulum back in the right direction.

Originally Posted By LordSkeletor:there are 22,000 gun laws on the books in the US. What we need are a good 20.

1. Don't kill innocent people with guns (self defense is always okay). Murder is already illegal, regardless of tool.2. Don't fuck people's property up with guns. Damaging other people's property is already illegal, regardless of tool.3. Don't carry firearms into government buildings, schools, etc. Why not? The .gov has plenty of security and armed citizens might discourage school shootings. Even if not, why point out firearms? Why not just say any object which could be considered dangerous, whether it be a hammer, icepick or firearm?4. Don't possess drugs with guns or rob people with guns. Don't have illegal drugs or rob people, the presence of a firearm is irrelevant.5. Don't brandish or otherwise point guns at other people in a threatening manner. Don't threaten people with any dangerous item, whether it be a lighter, a pointy stick, a rabid cat or a firearm.

You get the idea.

Yep, we can eliminate firearms from each one of those and have some reasonable laws on the books.

"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. " -Niels Bohr

For example: Too many children are accidentally shot every year. So it should be a law that schools must teach firearms safety and basic shooting skills to all students. I mean, we teach kids about sex and about driving in school. So we should teach them to shoot also.

What's the difference? Those who plan to use guns for nefarious business will obtain them by illegal means. Restricting guns is a pointless and frankly unconstitutional idea anyway.

Here's a question though, everyone always gets hung up on what a 'militia' is. I'm more interested in what the "well regulated" part meant. Training? Mandatory training? Compulsory service? A standing TO&E to be filled by citizen volunteers? It means something, but I don't think I've ever heard a reasonable explanation.